Uncoordinated pilot decontamination in massive MIMO systems

EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, Sep 2017

This work concerns wireless cellular networks applying time division duplexing (TDD) massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) technology. Such systems suffer from pilot contamination during channel estimation, due to the shortage of orthogonal pilot sequences. This paper presents a solution based on pilot sequence hopping, which provides a randomization of the pilot contamination. It is shown that such randomized contamination can be significantly suppressed through appropriate filtering. The resulting channel estimation scheme requires no inter-cell coordination, which is a strong advantage for practical implementations. Comparisons with conventional estimation methods show that the MSE can be lowered as much as an order of magnitude at low mobility. Achievable uplink and downlink rates are increased by 42 and 46%, respectively, in a system with 128 antennas at the base station.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:


Uncoordinated pilot decontamination in massive MIMO systems

Sørensen and Carvalho EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking Uncoordinated pilot decontamination in massive MIMO systems Jesper H. Sørensen 0 0 Department of Electronic Systems, Aalborg University , Fredrik Bajers Vej 7, 9220 Aalborg , Denmark This work concerns wireless cellular networks applying time division duplexing (TDD) massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) technology. Such systems suffer from pilot contamination during channel estimation, due to the shortage of orthogonal pilot sequences. This paper presents a solution based on pilot sequence hopping, which provides a randomization of the pilot contamination. It is shown that such randomized contamination can be significantly suppressed through appropriate filtering. The resulting channel estimation scheme requires no inter-cell coordination, which is a strong advantage for practical implementations. Comparisons with conventional estimation methods show that the MSE can be lowered as much as an order of magnitude at low mobility. Achievable uplink and downlink rates are increased by 42 and 46%, respectively, in a system with 128 antennas at the base station. Massive MIMO; Pilot contamination; Kalman filter 1 Introduction Muliple-input multiple-output (MIMO) technology [1] is finding its way into practical systems, like LTE and its successor LTE-Advanced. It is a key component for these systems’ ability to improve the spectral efficiency. The success of MIMO technology has motivated research in extending the idea of MIMO to cases with hundreds, or even thousands of antennas, at transmitting and/or receiving side. This is often termed massive MIMO. In mobile communication systems, like LTE, the more realistic scenario is to have a massive amount of antennas only at the base station (BS), due to the physical limitations at the user equipment (UE). It has been shown that such a system [2], in theory, can eliminate entirely the effect of small-scale fading and thermal noise, when the number of BS antennas goes to infinity. The only remaining impairment is inter-cell interference, caused by imperfect channel state information (CSI), which is a result of nonorthogonality of training pilots used to gather the CSI. This is often referred to as pilot contamination. It is considered as one of the major challenges in massive MIMO systems [3]. Mitigation of pilot contamination has been the focus of several works recently. These fall into two categories: one with coordination among cells and one without. The first category includes [4], where it is utilized that the desired and interfering signals can be distinguished in the channel covariance matrices, as long as the angle-of-arrival spreads of desired and interfering signals do not overlap. A pilot coordination scheme is proposed to help satisfying this condition. The work in [5] utilizes coordination among BSs to share downlink messages. Each BS then performs linear combinations of messages intended for users applying the same pilot sequence. This is shown to eliminate interference when the number of BS antennas goes to infinity. The category without coordination also includes notable contributions. A multi-cell precoding technique is used in [6] with the objective of not only minimizing the mean squared error of the signals of interest within the cell but also minimizing the interference imposed to other cells. In [7], it is shown that channel estimates can be found as eigenvectors of the covariance matrix of the received signal when the number of BS antennas grows large and the system has “favorable propagation.” The work in [8–11] is based on examining the eigenvalue distribution of the received signal to identify an interference free subspace on which the signal is projected. It is shown that an interference free subspace can be identified when certain conditions are fulfilled concerning the number of BS antennas, user equipment antennas, channel coherence time, and the signal-to-interference ratio. Recently, in [12], a combination of the solutions in [4] and [8–11] was proposed. The resulting solution unites the strengths of these solutions leading to a more robust pilot decontamination. In this paper, we propose pilot decontamination, which does not require inter-cell coordination and is able to exploit past pilot signals. It is based on pilot sequence hopping performed within each cell. Pilot sequence hopping means that every user chooses a new pilot sequence in each time slot. Thus, in every time slot, the pilot signal of a user is contaminated by a different set of interfering users, which means channel estimation is affected by a different set of interfering channels. If channel estimation is carried out based solely on the pilot sequence of the current slot, then pilot sequence hopping does not bring any gain. The key in our solution is a channel estimation that incorporates multiple time slots so that it can benefit from randomization of the pilot contamination. Recent work utilizing temporal correlation for channel estimation is found in [13], although not in combination with pilot hopping and not with the purpose of mitigating pilot contamination. Random selection of pilot sequences is also explored in [14] and [15]. Both works consider the random access problem in cellular networks. In [14], pilot contamination is avoided through a distributed collision detection algorithm, which enables users with weak channels to detect that they are contaminators of a user with a strong channel and as a result postpone their transmission. The work in [15] considers codeword transmissions that are spread across multiple time slots, each with a different contaminator. This decorrelates the contamination within a single codeword, which improves performance. When the channel is time-variant and correlated across time slots, it is possible to exploit the information about the channel across time slots by an appropriate filtering and benefit from contamination randomization. In this paper, channel estimation across multiple time slots is performed using a modified version of the Kalman filter, which is capable of tracking the channel and the channel correlation. The level of contamination suppression depends on the channel correlation between slots of the UE of interest as well as the contaminators. In LTE, channel correlation between time slots is large even at medium-high speeds, making the proposed solution very efficient. This work is an extension of the work in [16], where the concept of pilot sequence hopping in combination with a Kalman channel tracker is introduced. In this paper, the work is extended with more sophisticated mobility models and a generalization of the estimation algorithm, which allows higher order Kalman process models. Furthermore, the Bayesian Cramer-Rao lower bound is derived for the estimation problem at hand and applied as a benchmark in the numerical evaluations. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the applied channel and mobility models and the problem of pilot contamination. The proposed solution is described in Section 3 and analyzed in Section 4. Section 5 provides numerical results and a comparison to existing solutions. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 6. 2 System model In this work, we denote scalars in lower case, vectors in bold lower case, and matrices in bold upper case. A superscript “T ” denotes the transpose, and a superscript “H” denotes the conjugate transpose. 2.1 Channel model This work treats a cellular system consisting of L cells with K users in each cell, see Fig. 1. A time division duplexing (TDD) massive MIMO scenario is considered, where the BS has M antennas and the UE has a single antenna. We restrict our attention to the channel estimation performed in a single cell, which we term “the cell of interest” and assign the index “0.” The channel between the BS in the cell of interest and the kth user in the th cell is denoted as hk = hk ( 1 )hk ( 2 ) . . . hk (M) , where the individual channel coefficients are complex scalars. Note that for > 0, hk refers to a channel between the BS of interest and a UE connected to a different BS. We furthermore restrict our attention to the estimation of a single channel coefficient; hence, a channel is denoted as the complex scalar hk . The work easily extends to vector estimations, in which case spatial correlation can be exploited for improved performance. A rich scattering environment is assumed, such that hk can be modeled using Clarke’s model [17]. Hence, in a time-slotted system, where a time slot has a length of ts seconds, the channel coefficient in the nth time slot is Ns 1 Ns m=1 hkn = √ exp j2π fdnts cos αm + φm , ( 1 ) where Ns is the number of fixed scatterers associated with all BS/UE pairs, fd is the maximum Doppler shift, αm and φm are the angle of arrival and initial phase, respectively, of the wave from the mth scatterer. Both αm and φm are independent and uniformly distributed in the interval [ −π , π ), which results from random scatterer locations. Furthermore, fd = vc fc, where v is the speed of the UE, c is the speed of light and fc is the carrier frequency. In a TDD massive MIMO system, collection of channel state information (CSI) is performed using uplink pilot training. The CSI achieved this way is utilized in both downlink and uplink transmissions based on the channel reciprocity assumption. We define a pilot training period followed by an uplink and a downlink transmission period as a time slot. See Fig. 2 for an example of a transmission schedule with two time slots. We assume all transmissions in the system are synchronized, which represents a worst-case scenario from a pilot contamination perspective, as argued in [2]. During the nth pilot training period, the kth user in the th cell transmits a pilot sequence xkn = xkn ( 1 )xkn ( 2 ) . . . xkn (τ ) T , where τ is the pilot sequence length. Ideally, all pilot sequences in the entire system are orthogonal, in order to avoid interference. However, this would require pilot sequences of at least length L × K , which in most practical systems is not feasible. Instead, orthogonality within each cell only is ensured, i.e., τ = K , thereby dealing with the potentially strongest sources of interference. As a result, all cells use the same set of pilots, potentially causing interference from neighboring cells. This is referred to as pilot contamination. We define the contaminating set, Cnk , as the set of all pairs i, j, which identify all UEs applying the same pilot sequence in the nth time slot as the kth user in the th cell. Hence, xinj = xkn ∀i, j ∈ Cnk . The pilot signal received by the BS of interest, concerning the kth user in the nth time slot can be expressed as yk0 n = hkn0xkn0 + ij ij hnxn + zkn0, i,j∈Cnk0 ( 2 ) where zkn0 = znk0( 1 )znk0( 2 ) . . . znk0(τ ) T and znk0(j) are circularly symmetric Gaussian random variables with zero mean and unit variance for all j. Here, only signals leading to contamination are included in the sum term since any hinjxinj ∀ i, j ∈/ Cnk are removed when correlating with the applied pilot sequence. Hence, all contributions from the sum term are undesirable and will contaminate the CSI. Without loss of generality, we focus on the channel estimation for a single user in a single cell. Hence, in the remainder of the paper, we omit the superscript k for ease of notation. 2.2 Mobility model In the employed mobility model, we restrict our attention to the consequences of mobility on the small-scale fading characteristics, i.e., fd. Therefore, consequences like shadowing, varying path loss, and cell handover are disregarded. Since we employ pilot sequence hopping in this work, we can furthermore restrict our attention to the mobility of the UE of interest. This is explained in Section 3.1. We consider three different mobility models: • M1 : In this mobility model, the UE moves at a constant speed, v1, for T1 seconds. • M2 : (Train) This model emulates the mobility experienced in a train. Initially, the speed is zero for T2,1 seconds. Then, the speed increases linearly, i.e., with constant acceleration, δ2,+, until a specified maximum speed, v2. This speed is maintained for T2,2 seconds, after which the speed is decreased linearly, with deceleration, δ2,−, until mobility has seized. Finally, the speed is kept at zero for T2,3 seconds. • M3 : (Car) The third mobility model emulates the behavior of a car for T3 seconds. The model operates with a vector of possible speeds, v = [v0v1 . . . vmax], where the individual speeds are uniformly spaced between zero and vmax. The initial speed is v0 = 0. In every time slot, the speed is increased with probability p+ and decreased with probability p− and remains constant with probability 1 − p+ − p−. Acceleration and deceleration are constant at δ3,+ and δ3,−, respectively. Speed changes always occur to the nearest speed in v, and both acceleration from vmax and deceleration from v0 result in no change. Examples of all three mobility models are plotted in Fig. 3. 3 Pilot decontamination The solution to pilot contamination proposed in this work consists of two components: 1. Pilot sequence hopping : This component refers to random shuffling of the pilots applied within a cell. This shuffle occurs between every time slot. The purpose of this component is to decorrelate the contaminating signals. When pilots are shuffled, the set of contaminating users will be replaced by a new set, whose channel coefficients are uncorrelated with those of the previous set. 2. Kalman filtering: The autocorrelation of the channel coefficient of the user of interest is high at low mobility. This means that information about the value of the current channel coefficient exists not only in the most recent pilot signal but also in past pilot signals. This can be extracted using a filter. Since the channel coefficients are time-varying, we are dealing with a tracking problem. For this purpose, a Kalman filter is attractive due to its excellent tracking capability and recursive structure, which provides good performance at low complexity. Since the contaminating signals have been decorrelated, the Kalman filter will suppress the impact of these signals, leading to pilot decontamination. 3.1 Pilot sequence hopping Pilot sequence hopping is a technique where the UEs randomly switch to a new pilot sequence in between time slots. This must be coordinated with the BS, which in practice can be realized by letting the BS send a seed for a pseudorandom number generator to each UE. This ensures that the coordination overhead is limited to the initial connection phase, whereby it can be neglected. Random pilot sequence hopping is illustrated in Fig. 4 in the case of τ = K = 5. Note how the identity of the contaminator changes between time slots, as opposed to a fixed pilot sequence schedule, where the contaminator remains the same UE. Consequently, the undesirable part of the pilot signal, i.e., the sum term in ( 2 ), varies rapidly between time slots compared to the variation caused by the mobility of a single contaminator in a fixed schedule. In fact, the impact of pilot sequence hopping, from a contamination perspective, can be viewed as a dramatic increase of the mobility of the contaminator. This in turn leads to a lowered autocorrelation, or decorrelation, in the contaminating signal, which is the motivation behind performing pilot sequence hopping. The level of decorrelation is related to the time between two instances, where the same user acts as a contaminator. We refer to this as the collision distance, and we denote it as tck for the kth user, see Fig. 4. Note that in the case of a fixed pilot schedule, tck = 1. The goal of pilot sequence hopping is to maximize tck, either in an expected sense or maxmin sense, i.e., maximization of the minimum value. The latter can be pursued through a minimal level of coordination of pilot sequence schedules among neighboring cells. However, this work is strictly restricted to a framework with no inter-cell coordination; hence, we focus on the expected value of tck. If pilot sequence hopping is performed at random and τ = K , then tck follows a geometric distribution, such that where P tck = w is the probability that the collision distance is w and p is the probability of a given UE being the next contaminator. We then have E tck = K , i.e., the expected collision distance increases with the number of users/pilots per cell, which follows intuition. Note that the collision distance is a user-specific measure, which holds for all potential contaminators in the system. Hence, the ( 3 ) analysis still holds when considering systems with more than one neighboring cell. The maximization of E tck leads to a decorrelation of the contaminating signals. The benefit of this is reaped using appropriate filtering techniques. For this purpose, we have chosen a modified version of the Kalman filter, which is described next. 3.2 Modified Kalman filter The problem of estimating a time-varying channel based on pilot signals, also termed channel tracking, can be solved using the Kalman filter [18]. The Kalman filtering Qn = γn0 − j j anγn. d+1 j=1 include an AR model tracker. First, we state the conventional Kalman filter [18] in our context, where the AR coefficients are assumed known. Here, γnj is the autocovariance of the channel coefficient at a lag of j time slots, and γn0, i.e., channel power, is assumed known. Since γnj = γn−j, we can find γnj for j > 0 by solving the Yule-Walker equations ⎡ ⎢⎢⎢ ⎣ ⎡ γn0 γn−1 . . . γn−d ⎤ γn1 ⎤ ⎡ γnγd...n+21 ⎥⎦⎥⎥ = ⎣⎢⎢⎢⎢ γγ...nnd1 .γ...n0.. γ....n1.. γγn−...n01 ⎥⎦⎥⎥⎥ × ⎣⎢⎢⎢ a1n ⎤ a2 ..n ⎥⎥⎥ . . ⎦ ad+1 n The corresponding measurement equation for the Kalman filter is expressed based on ( 2 ) as follows: m yn = Xnhn + vn , Xn = ⎣⎢ ⎡ xn( 1 ) 0 . . . 0 ⎤ ... ... τ × d ... ⎥⎦ , xn(τ ) 0 . . . 0 where vnm is the measurement noise, which is zero mean circularly symmetric Gaussian with covariance matrix σo2Iτ +σc2XnXnH . Here, σo2 and σc2 are noise power and total contamination power (average over time), respectively, which are both assumed known. In a conventional Kalman filter, An is assumed constant and known. However, this cannot be assumed in our case; thus, the varying elements, ajn, j = 1, . . . , d + 1, must be tracked along with the channel coefficients. For this purpose, we must modify the conventional Kalman filter to framework consists of a process equation and a measurement equation. The process equation expresses how the variable under estimation develops over time. We already chose such a model in ( 1 ); however, Clarke’s model does not fit the structure of the Kalman filter. As a result, we choose an autoregressive (AR) model as an approximation of the model in ( 1 ). An AR model is said to have order d + 1 if it expresses the current and d previous values as a function of the d + 1 previous values. As d increases, the approximation of Clarke’s model is increasingly valid. In our context, if we define hn = hn . . . hn−d T , the process equation for the Kalman filter is expressed as hn = Anhn−1 + vpn, ( 4 ) ⎡ a1n . . . adn+1 ⎤ An = ⎣ Id where Id is the d × d identity matrix, 0d×1 is a d × 1 vector of zeros, and vn = vpn( 1 ) . . . vpn(d + 1) T is the process p noise, which is zero mean circularly symmetric Gaussian with covariance matrix QnId+1, where where Iτ is the τ × τ identity matrix and hˆ n is the estimate of hn. For the tracking of the AR coefficients, an approach similar to the one in [19] is taken. In [19], the inclusion of a first-order AR coefficient tracker is presented for a Kalman predictor, i.e., a filter with the purpose of predicting the channel, hn, based on all observations until yn−1. In this work, we extend this approach to higher order AR models taking all observations until yn into account. The approach is based on the principle of gradient descent. The gradient, ∇n, with respect to An of the cost function, the mean squared error (MSE), is derived and used to adjust An in the direction of decreasing MSE. Note that this iterative numerical method is attractive since an analytical minimization of the cost function is complex to perform at every iteration. Furthermore, the minimization may only be feasible under certain conditions. Gradient descent is therefore a more robust and computationally simple solution. The gradient of the MSE is ∂ ∇n(i, j) = ∂An−1(i, j) E |en|2 ( 5 ) ( 6 ) ( 7 ) ( 8 ) ( 9 ) ( 10 ) ( 11 ) ( 12 ) ( 15 ) ( 16 ) ( 17 ) i,j(k, ) = if i = k and j = , elsewhere. Mn,i,j = FnSn,i,jXnH Rn−1. ∂ hˆn Here, qn,i,j = ∂An(i,j) and is found by differentiating ( 13 ) with respect to An(i, j), such that qn,i,j = Fn Anqn−1,i,j + i,j hˆn−1 + Mn,i,jen. where Mn,i,j = ∂A∂nK(ni,j) , which is found by differentiating ( 12 ) with respect to An(i, j); hence, ∂Pn We introduced Sn,i,j = ∂An(i,j) , which is a differentiation of ( 15 ) with respect to An(i, j), giving us Sn+1,i,j = i,jFnPnAnH + AnFnSn,i,jFnH AnH + AnFnPn iH,j + UnId+1 Finally, we have Un = ∂A∂nQ(ni,j) , which can be found analytically by solving for Qn in ( 6 ) and ( 7 ) and differentiating with respect to An(i, j). Using ∇n, we can then adjust An as follows: An = An−1 − μ[ ∇n]−+νν , where μ is a parameter adjusting the convergence speed and the brackets denote truncations. The truncation to ν is for avoiding dramatic adjustments in situations with a high slope. The need for this will be explained in Section 5. In addition to the truncation, we enforce |zj| < 0.999, where zj are the roots of the polynomial zd+1 − jd=+11 ajnzd+1−j. This ensures a stationary AR process. We can now state the modified Kalman filtering algorithm including an AR coefficient tracker: ( 19 ) ( 20 ) ( 21 ) In the following subsection, we derive the lower bound on the MSE of an estimate of the channel coefficients. It serves as a benchmark in the numerical evaluations in Section 5. 4 Analysis Initially, we present a simplified analysis of a toy example, in order to help the understanding of the benefit from pilot sequence hopping. Consider the ideal case of a constant channel between BS and UE of interest and a single contaminating neighboring cell. Noise is disregarded since , An = An−1 − μ[ ∇n]−+νν , attention is on decontamination. Moreover, for this toy example only, we assume an infinite amount of orthogonal pilot sequences and an infinite amount of users per cell, such that τ = K = ∞ and E tck = ∞, which means contaminating signals in all time slots are independent. For simplicity, we assume xnH xn = 1, such that the estimate in time slot n is n. We define the MSE of this estimate as E where hn is the channel of the contaminator in time slot 2 . h − hˆn Now, consider a new estimator, hˆ¯ n, which is the average of all estimates until time slot n. Hence, we have In this case, the error in the estimate is solely composed of the average of the contaminating signals, which are independent and have variance σc2. Hence, E h − h¯ˆ n 2 = n +σc2σc2 , if prior knowledge on h is a standard Gaussian. If pilot sequence hopping had not been σc2 performed, the MSE had remained 1+σc2 since hn would be constant. Note that the MSE goes towards zero for n → ∞, when pilot sequence hopping is performed. This is a result of the fact that a pilot signal in the infinite past carries as much information about the current channel as the most recent pilot signal, in the ideal example of a constant channel. Note also that for finite τ (and K ) and σc2 thereby finite E tck , the MSE is lower bounded by K+σc2 since only a maximum of K independent estimates can be achieved. In a more practical example with a time-varying channel, the amount of information carried in a pilot signal decays over time. We can account for this in a more elaborate Bayesian analysis, which is described next. 4.1 Bayesian analysis Given a set of observations, Y n = y1, . . . , yn , we are interested in deriving the distribution, in particular the variance, of the resulting estimate, hˆ n, of the most recent channel coefficient, hn. Here, yk = xkhk + vkm, which through least squares estimation gives us a scalar observation ylks = xkH xk −1 xkH yk = hk + vkm, where vkm is the residual scalar noise, which is zero mean Gaussian with σ 2 variance τo + σc2. We define ylns = yl1s, . . . , ylns and can then express the conditional probability density function of the vector of channel coefficients hn = [h1, . . . , hn]T using Bayes’ theorem as f hn|ylns = f ylns|hn f (hn) f yls n ( 22 ) (23) (24) where f (hn) is a multivariate Gaussian with mean vector 0 and covariance matrix , where i,j = γni−j = B0 2π fdts i − j and B0 is the zeroth-order Bessel function of the first kind. Furthermore, f ylns|hn is a multivariate Gaussian with mean vector hn and covariance matrix σ 2 C = τo + σc2 In. It is well known that combining a Gaussian prior and a Gaussian likelihood provides a Gaussian posterior. This Gaussian posterior can be expressed as f hn|ylns 1 = √(2π )n|V | e− V −1 = C−1 + −1, μh = V −1yls. n (hn−μh)HV−1(hn−μh) 2 , Equations (26) and (27) provide the optimal coefficients of a Bayesian filter and the corresponding covariance. The lower right corner element of V is then the variance of a causal filter estimating the most recent channel coefficient, hn. With Eqs. (25) to (27) as a starting point, we can analyze filters based on different assumptions on the underlying model of the channel. The proposed Kalman filter with a first-order AR model is based on a Markovian assumption, where a channel coefficient only depends on the previous channel coefficient, see Fig. 5. Under this assumption, the posterior of hn simplifies to the following recursive expression: , hn−1 ls f (hn|hn−1)f hn−1|yn−1 dhn−1, e − ylns−hn 2 2 στo2 +σc2 , (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) where f ho|ylos = f (ho) since no observation is made at time zero, and f (ho) is a standard Gaussian, such that the recursion is terminated. From the applied model, we have 0 We are primarily interested in the evolution of the variance and thereby the MSE of the estimator. Figure 6 shows evaluations of (36) for different levels of mobility, ts = 0.5 ms, σc2 = 0.6, σo2 = 0.2, and τ = 96. It shows how the , where a = B0 2π fdts . The integral in (29) can be viewed as the scaling factor in a product of the involved Gaussian distributions, such that ls f hn|yn−1 = 1 2π a2σ 2 hn−1 + 1 − a2 hn−aμhn−1 − e 2 a2σh2n−1 +1−a2 , 2 where a change of variable has been performed in (32) from hn−1 to ahn−1 in order to conform to its representation in (31). We can then express the scaled product of Gaussian distributions in (28) as follows: , a2σh2n−1 + 1 − a2 ylns + σ 2 τo + σc2 aμhn−1 a2σ 2 σ 2 hn−1 + 1 − a2 + τo + σc2 a2σ 2 hn−1 + 1 − a 2 a2σ 2 σ 2 hn−1 + 1 − a2 + τo + σc2 σ 2 τo + σc2 . MSE converges faster for higher mobilities since the information in past pilot signals decays faster. Note that these results act as a lower bound for the modified Kalman filter since we in (36) assume perfect knowledge of the AR coefficient, a. Any estimation error in the AR coefficient tracker will lead to increased MSE. In the following subsection, we derive the lower bound on the MSE for arbitrary AR model order. Along with the bound for first-order AR models in (36), it serves as a benchmark in the numerical evaluations in Section 5. mation error covariance is E 4.2 Cramer-Rao lower bound The Cramer-Rao lower bound (CRLB) [20] expresses the lower bound on the error covariance of any unbiased estimator based on a set of observations. In our context, the observations are Y = y1, . . . , yn , and the estiH hˆ − h hˆ − h , where h = [h1, . . . , hn]T . We follow a Bayesian framework, well suited to the tracking of time-varying parameters; thus, we employ the Bayesian CRLB. Having chosen Clarke’s model as the channel model, it follows that the a priori distribution of the parameter h is well approximated as a Gaussian distribution. Furthermore, we adapt a compact formulation for the case of complex parameters (see [20, p. 529]). The complex Bayesian CRLB is expressed as E hˆ − h hˆ − h H ≥ J −1, (37) inequality means that E where J is the Fisher information matrix. The matrix H hˆ − h hˆ − h − J −1 is positive semidefinite. The Fisher information matrix is given by σ 2 o L K τ μ ν fc Ns ts hˆ 0 q0 P1 where c1 and c2 are constants with independence from Y and h, −1 is the inverse of the n × n covariance matrix of h, and C−1 is the inverse of the τ × τ observation error covariance matrix. The CRLB at time n is the corresponding submatrix of J −1; it gives a lower bound on channel estimation at time n accounting for the past observations. By introducing the n × n matrix , where i,j = E − ∂2log∂ hfYi∂|hh(jY |h) and combining (38) through (41), we get J = i,j = + −1, xiH C−1xi, 0, C = σo2Iτ + σc2xnxnH , i,j = B0 2π fdts i − j , if i = j, if i = j, Working with the inverse of may cause numerical problems at low mobility, where is near-singular. This can be avoided by utilizing the matrix inversion lemma. We thus have J −1 = − (In ⊗ xi)H In ⊗ C−1 −1 + (In ⊗ xi) (In ⊗ xi)H −1 (In ⊗ xi) , (43) (42) where ⊗ denotes the Kronecker product. Furthermore, expression (43) allows a continuity with the case of no mobility for which the channel estimate of time n is the result of an average (see Eq. (23)). 5 Numerical results The proposed scheme has been simulated and compared to the conventional solutions of least squares (LS) estimation and minimum mean squared error (MMSE) estimation based on a single time slot. The expressions for the LS and MMSE estimators are given in (44) and (45), respectively. An overview of the parameters, which are common for all simulations, is given in Table 1. The choice of μ is based on experiments showing that this is a good compromise between convergence speed and limitation of noise-induced variance in the estimate. Throughout all simulations, we assume that contaminating signals have zero autocorrelation between time slots, which is justified by the choice of K = 96, such that E tck = 96. All simulation results are averages of 100 iterations of a scenario as specified by the mobility models in Section 2.2. hˆ lns = xnH xn −1 xnH yn, hˆ nmmse = xnH xnxnH + σn2Iτ + σc2xnxnH −1 yn. (44) (45) as E hn − hˆ n Initially, results are shown for the conventional Kalman filter expressed in Eqs. ( 10 ) through ( 15 ), using a firstorder AR model as the process equation. MSE, defined 2 , as a function of the user mobility, v, and the AR coefficient, a1n, is shown in Fig. 7. From this figure, it is evident how important it is to have an accurate AR model, which suits the current mobility of the UE of interest. This stresses the need for the modification of the Kalman filter, as proposed in Section 3.2. Moreover, it is seen that the derivative of the MSE with respect to a1n may attain very high values at high a1n. This can cause undesirably high variance in the estimate of the optimal a1n, which motivates the use of a derivative cap, ν. Figure 8 shows a comparison of the proposed estimator, the LS estimator, and the MMSE estimator, with respect to MSE as a function of the speed of the UE using mobility model M1. The simulations apply T1 = 100 s and σc2 = 0.6. For the proposed estimator, AR models of first, second, and third order are included. In all three cases, the initial AR model coefficients are numerically optimized through a parameter sweep. The results were a10 = 0.3 for the first-order model, a01 = 0.8 and a20 = 0.2 for the second-order model, and a10 = 0.7, a02 = −0.3, and a03 = −0.2 for the third-order model. The results show that a significant performance improvement is achieved at medium and high levels of mobility when increasing the AR model order from one to two. Further increasing to a third-order model yields a more mixed result. At medium mobility, a significant gain is achieved, whereas at higher mobility, the performances of the second- and third-order models are quite close and take turns in being the better. At low mobility, no gain is achieved when increasing the order of the AR model. At first glance, this may be surprising, but when looking at the coefficients found from solving the Yule-Walker equations, see Fig. 9, it is evident that low mobility presents a particularly challenging tracking task for a third-order AR model, due to large dynamics. Compared to the conventional methods of LS and MMSE, the proposed scheme offers a performance in an entirely different league. The gain decreases as speed increases, but only at unusually high speeds is the gain insignificant. There is still a gap to the Cramer-Rao lower bound, although much of it has been closed when comparing to the conventional methods. When comparing to the bound associated with a first-order AR model, as expressed in (36), it is seen that the lack of performance gain at high mobility is largely explained by the choice of process model for the Kalman filter. A different perspective is given in Fig. 10. Here, the MSE is plotted as a function of the signal-to-interference ratio (SIR), at typical mobility levels as defined by 3GPP [21]. Again, it is seen how increasing the order of the AR model is an advantage at medium and high mobility, but not at lower speeds. Figure 10 shows that this holds in a wide range of SIR. From the same perspective, Fig. 11 shows a comparison of the conventional methods and the proposed scheme with a third-order model. Here, it is seen that the performance improvement is achieved in the entire SIR range. Decreasing the SIR is particularly penalizing the LS method, while MMSE and the proposed method are better able to cope with the increased interference. Next, we look at the more sophisticated mobility models, M2 and M3. For M2, we use parameters T2,1 = T2,3 = 100 s, T2,2 = 800 s, δ2,+ = 2.6 m/s2, δ2,− = −2.6 m/s2, and v2 = 300 km/h. An example of a simulation with a single sequence of channel realizations is shown in Fig. 12. For M3, we use parameters T3 = 1000 s, v = [05 . . . 120] km/h, p+ = p− = 0.00025, δ3,+ = 2.5 m/s2, and δ3,− = −4 m/s2. Figure 13 shows a simulation example with this mobility model. It is seen that with both mobility models, the AR parameter tracker is able to adjust to the varying speed and thereby adapt to the varying amount of information available in past pilot signals. In general, we expect to see a low MSE when the speed is low and vice versa. The figures confirm that this is in fact achieved. Figure 14 shows a comparison of the different AR model orders. It shows that increasing the order also provides performance enhancements in a wide range of SIR when considering M2 and M3. Finally, we evaluate how the improvements of the channel estimates translate into increased achievable uplink and dowlink rates in a TDD massive MIMO system with M antennas at the BS. The achievable rates of such a system were derived in [22, p. 4]. We apply the proposed scheme for each individual channel coefficient in the system and evaluate the resulting achievable uplink and downlink rates. Furthermore, we evaluate the achievable rates in a system with perfect CSI at the BS and a system with CSI achieved with a conventional MMSE estimator at the BS. These act as upper and lower bounds, respectively, to the proposed scheme. The results are shown in Figs. 15 (downlink) and 16 (uplink). It is evident that the proposed scheme provides a significant improvement in achievable rates compared to the system with MMSE estimation. At low mobility, it even comes fairly close to a system with perfect CSI. Although the improvements are more visible at very high and impractical values of M, significant relative improvements are also achieved at lower values of M. As an example, the achievable uplink and downlink rates are increased by 42 and 46%, respectively, for M = 128, compared to MMSE estimation. Another important observation is that the system with MMSE estimation converges to a limit as M goes to infinity. The limit is found as log2 1 + σ12 and is the well-known c limitation caused by pilot contamination. As in the case of perfect CSI, the proposed scheme is able to break this limit, which demonstrates its ability to mitigate pilot contamination. 6 Conclusions We have presented a solution to pilot contamination in channel estimation, which is a major challenge in TDD massive MIMO systems. It is based on a combination of a pilot sequence hopping scheme and a modified Kalman filter. The pilot sequence hopping scheme involves random shuffling of the assigned pilot sequences within a cell, which ensures decorrelation in the time dimension of the contaminating signals. This is essential since it enables subsequent filtering to suppress the contamination. For this filtering, the Kalman filter has been chosen, due to its ability to track a time-varying state. However, a conventional Kalman filter is not able to adapt to changes in the underlying model, which is necessary when users have unknown and varying levels of mobility. For this problem, we have presented a modified Kalman filter, which can adapt the underlying model based on a minimization of the mean squared error. Numerical evaluations show that the proposed solution can suppress a significant portion of the contamination at low and moderate levels of mobility. Even at high mobility, i.e., car speeds of 100 to 130 km/h, the proposed solution can provide a noticeable gain over conventional estimation methods. Acknowledgements The research presented in this paper was supported by the Danish Council for Independent Research (Det Frie Forskningsråd) DFF - 1335 − 00273. Authors’ contributions Both authors have contributed to the design and analyis of the proposed methods as well as the writing of this manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 1. T Brown , E De Carvalho, P Kyritsi , Practical Guide to the MIMO Radio Channel . (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2012 ) 2. TL Marzetta , Noncooperative cellular wireless with unlimited numbers of base station antennas . Wirel. Commun. IEEE Trans . 9 ( 11 ), 3590 - 3600 ( 2010 ). doi: 10 .1109/TWC. 2010 . 092810 .091092 3. F Rusek , D Persson , BK Lau, EG Larsson, TL Marzetta, O Edfors , F Tufvesson , Scaling up MIMO: opportunities and challenges with very large arrays . Signal Proc. Mag . IEEE. 30 ( 1 ), 40 - 60 ( 2013 ). doi: 10 .1109/MSP. 2011 .2178495 4. H Yin , D Gesbert , M Filippou , Y Liu , A coordinated approach to channel estimation in large-scale multiple-antenna systems . Sel. Commun. IEEE J . 31 ( 2 ), 264 - 273 ( 2013 ). doi: 10 .1109/JSAC. 2013 .130214 5. A Ashikhmin , T Marzetta , in Information Theory Proceedings (ISIT) , 2012 IEEE International Symposium On . Pilot contamination precoding in multi-cell large scale antenna systems , ( 2012 ), pp. 1137 - 1141 . doi: 10 .1109/ISIT. 2012 .6283031 6. J Jose , A Ashikhmin, TL Marzetta, S Vishwanath, Pilot contamination and precoding in multi-cell TDD systems . Wirel. Commun. IEEE Trans . 10 ( 8 ), 2640 - 2651 ( 2011 ). doi: 10 .1109/TWC. 2011 . 060711 .101155 7. HQ Ngo , EG Larsson, in Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , 2012 IEEE International Conference On. EVD-based channel estimation in multicell multiuser MIMO systems with very large antenna arrays , ( 2012 ), pp. 3249 - 3252 . doi: 10 .1109/ICASSP. 2012 .6288608 8. RR Muller , L Cottatellucci , M Vehkapera , Blind pilot decontamination . Sel. Topics Signal Proc. IEEE J . 8 ( 5 ), 773 - 786 ( 2014 ). doi: 10 .1109/JSTSP. 2014 .2310053 9. RR Mueller , M Vehkaperae , L Cottatellucci , in Smart Antennas (WSA) , 2013 17th International ITG Workshop On. Blind pilot decontamination (VDE Verlag, Offenbach, 2013 ), pp. 1 - 6 10. RR Muller, M Vehkapera , L Cottatellucci , in Signals, Systems and Computers , 2013 Asilomar Conference On. Analysis of blind pilot decontamination , ( 2013 ), pp. 1016 - 1020 . doi: 10 .1109/ACSSC. 2013 .6810444 11. L Cottatellucci , RR Müller, M Vehkaperä , in Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring) , 2013 IEEE 77th. Analysis of pilot decontamination based on power control , ( 2013 ), pp. 1 - 5 . doi: 10 .1109/VTCSpring. 2013 .6691891 12. H Yin , L Cottatellucci , D Gesbert , RR Müller, G He , Robust pilot decontamination based on joint angle and power domain discrimination . IEEE Trans. Signal Process . 64 ( 11 ), 2990 - 3003 ( 2016 ). doi: 10 .1109/TSP. 2016 .2535204 13. J Choi , DJ Love, P Bidigare , Downlink training techniques for FDD massive mimo systems: open-loop and closed-loop training with memory . Sel. Topics Signal Proc. IEEE J . 8 ( 5 ), 802 - 814 ( 2014 ). doi: 10 .1109/JSTSP. 2014 .2313020 14. E Björnson , E de Carvalho, JH Sørensen, EG Larsson, P Popovski , A random access protocol for pilot allocation in crowded massive mimo systems . IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun . 16 ( 4 ), 2220 - 2234 ( 2017 ). doi: 10 .1109/TWC. 2017 .2660489 15. E de Carvalho, E Björnson, EG Larsson, P Popovski, in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . Random access for massive mimo systems with intra-cell pilot contamination , ( 2016 ), pp. 3361 - 3365 . doi: 10 .1109/ICASSP. 2016 .7472300 16. JH Sørensen , E De Carvalho, in IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, GLOBECOM. Pilot decontamination through pilot sequence hopping in massive mimo systems , ( 2014 ) 17. R Clarke , A statistical theory of mobile-radio reception . Bell Syst. Tech. J . 47 ( 6 ), 957 - 1000 ( 1968 ) 18. S Haykin , Adaptive Filter Theory. (Pearson Education, Limited , Harlow, 2013 ) 19. K-Y Han , S-W Lee , J-S Lim , K-M Sung , Channel estimation for OFDM with fast fading channels by modified Kalman filter . Consum. Electron. IEEE Trans . 50 ( 2 ), 443 - 449 ( 2004 ). doi: 10 .1109/TCE. 2004 .1309406 20. SM Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Estimation Theory . ( Prentice-Hall , Inc., Upper Saddle River , 1993 ) 21. 3GPP: Spatial channel model for multiple input multiple output (MIMO) simulations . TR 25.996, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) ( September 2012 ). http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/25996.htm. Accessed 13 Sept 2017 22. J Hoydis , S ten Brink, M Debbah , Massive MIMO in the UL/DL of cellular networks: how many antennas do we need? Sel. Areas Commun . IEEE J. 31 ( 2 ), 160 - 171 ( 2013 ). doi: 10 .1109/JSAC. 2013 .130205

This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2Fs13638-017-0939-7.pdf

Jesper H. Sørensen, Elisabeth de Carvalho. Uncoordinated pilot decontamination in massive MIMO systems, EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, 2017, 156, DOI: 10.1186/s13638-017-0939-7